I've seen atheist meetings with a striking resemblance to church meetings. It's not the Bible and Jesus, it's the selfish gene and Dawkins. In either case, they themselves rarely understand either. It's two sides to one coin.
People develop their opinion according to the local norms. It is only when a person is marginalized, they break that rule. And usually, they just end out in the opposite ditch.
People quote science to appear 'brighter' and people quote religion to appear more 'pius'.
Amazing... I never grow tired of watching it. It is also a powerful dispeller of dawkinists foruns... surely because it is disconcerting to be confronted with true geniality.
Its funny because he manages to make digs at both fundamentalism and atheism. But the real essence of this video is that not everything can be calculated mechanically, which is one of the greatest aspects of human life. And take it as you will, but that's ultimately saying something to those believe humans can fully grasp mankind within their own scope of understanding which actually constrains us within such limits
The real problem is that as humans we have a tendency to harden our opinions into dogmas. Our attitude by nature, is to be close minded and question everything except our own assumptions. Religious people, contrary to what many espouse, ARE capable of critical thinking, just not in regards to their own beliefs! And sadly, many scientists are guilty of the same hypocrisy. The scientific method practiced ideally is a pursuit of the unknown, not an inflexible dogmatic materialist worldview.
"[There is] only one means to curtail, simplify and localize the bloody agony of the old society and the bloody birth-pangs of the new, only one means-the revolutionary terror." -Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Religion, atheism, and political ideologies don't kill people. People kill people.
"[There is] only one means to curtail, simplify and localize the bloody agony of the old society and the bloody birth-pangs of the new, only one means-the revolutionary terror." -Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Religion, atheism, and political ideologies don't kill people. People kill people.
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."- Surah Tawba 9:5
Mostly atheists, overall fanatics and people who confuse beliefs with science.
In other words, anyone who becomes desperately and fanatically fixated with his own vision of the world and who tries to impose it on everyone else by "validating" it with pseudo-science.
@seppsters I'm an Atheist but I don't try to change religious people's minds. I can respect someone who puts his faith in something higher. Though personally I find it silly.
however, ALL religions ( including Budhism, yes) have no respect for women. Islam is about peace and helping the poor for example, but there is NO respect for womens rights, wrong in my opinion. Christianity has based itself around racism and bigotry, however, through logic thinking, this is dying.
Nothing has murdered, tortured or descriminated more people than systems based on atheism or systems without strong dogmatic spiritual values. The most disgusting (but definitely not the only) manifestation of this was communism, there was plenty of hatred and bigotry there, yet no religion
You seem to believe that rational thought will inevitably lead to ethical behaviour and this is complete and absolute non-sense
If you really worry about people's welfare you should at least support religions
@seppsters even the communists had a religion look at Soviet they were christian orthodox christians.
China are buddhistic. Cuba is christian in fact most people in a country are religious. And now the christian crusades killed about 2,000'000 people not to talk about the spanish inquistion who killed and tortured many.
The abrahamitic wars are big killing machines and yet you say that religion do not kill. And I never believed in god and I live ethically correct. And even animals live ethical.
China was buddhistic, Soviet Union was Christian ? Rofl,you have no idea of what you're talking and you're not getting the point. You seem to be too stupid to understand that "abrahamitic" religions caused alot less death and misery than atheism or lack of spiritual belief and if you're too stupid too understand that, there's no point in debating any further.
@seppsters It is you who is "too stupid too understand". Lack of belief has never motivated someone to comitt crimes against humanity. No genocide or war was ever started to spread atheism. On the other hand, the spread of religion has killed millions of people.
BTW: Only 16% of Russians and just 14% of Chineese people are athiests. In fact, 70% of Russians are Christian.
@Md2802 Athiesm was part of the state sponsered ideology associated with communism. There were wars and genocide to help spread communism. So yes and also spread athiesm as part of the comunist ideology. Religious people persecuted and killed because they chose to believe in something.
I'm not taking sides with religion, I'm anti-religious. I'm just stating facts. I beleive people should be free to beleive in or not beleive in what they want or don't want to beleive in. I beleive in freedom.
@14sJakeB190 Although athiesm was part of the Soviet Unions state ideology, religion was never officially outlawed. Of the estimated 20 million people who died under Stalin's rule, relatively few were killed because of their religious beliefs [roughly 80,000 (0.4%) to 200,000 (1%)].
@seppsters I neutral on the religion vs non-religion debate. But I have to point out that combined over the history of humanity religion has been a tool used to motivate people to kill other people. I have no idea how many people have been killed as a result, but it's probably more than Athiesm.
Athiesm may have killed more people in the 20th century, but not total combined.
So if both religion and athiesm kills... I think neither kills. I think people kill people.
@seppsters not to be a cunt but the thing religion have done is create fundamentalists that kills people everyday.
In the bible it says to kill everyone if they misbehave. All religions support wars so called crusades. look at christianity after year 0 in the name of christianity have 8 million people died at least. In the name of atheism 0.
Communists live by one rule everyone is the same and everybody should share. But it is as they say a fool that uses god as defence has no defence.
Again, you seem to be using your personal opinions/problems and distort historical facts. "In the name of atheism" ? How about "not in the name of religion" ? or "in the name of self-interest". You'll find alot of people had been killed NOT in the name of religion by the year 0. The bible states a commandment: Thou shalt not murder. Commandments override any other statement there.
@14sJakeB190 kay sorry about that then but my point is just that religion has been the cause of a lot of injustices including racism, the crusades, torture, witch hunting, abuse and disregard towards women, etc...
I don't think however that one should outlaw religion in general, any religion. As long as you don't give spiritual leaders ACTUAL power, because that's just a recipe for disaster.
Just a month ago, there was this video of priests attacking each other, imagine that with armies.
anyone find this a parody on the modern notion of genetic predisposition?
(Which often convices people that they have little to no control over the quality of their life versus those who say nutrition and lifestyle have MUCH more influence on the genetic development of a living being)
@MrJustSandy No, he is making fun of fundamentalist materialists who have a naive 19th century impression of what science is telling us about the nature of reality.
He is wrong about quantum mechanics, it does not say that you cant explain everything mechanically it says that mechanics becomes statistical in nature and a bit hard to explain, but it is still, quantum MECHANICS. So just so people know, although i love john cleese... please become qualified before you start talk knowingly about quantum mechanics, its a fairly simple idea thats really difficult to explain.
@pedrosanchez89 dood. have some coconut ice cream and chill the heck down - it's "comedy", from the Latin "comoedia" and the Greek "komoidia", meaning "an amusing spectacle". notice: an AMUSING spectacle, not an "edifying" spectacle, an "educational" spectacle, or even a "factually correct" spectacle.
@threenorns3 Lol calm down man I'm chilled. His comedy is a means to an end in this example, not just flat out comedy, and I study quantum physics and a lot of people take it to conclusions which it doesnt lead to, which is annoying because I'm just a bit stuck up like that and would prefer people to get their facts right rather than believe things that aren't true. Also a hell of a lot of people dont keep the fact that cleese doesnt know what he is talking about in their minds when watching.
@pedrosanchez89 i agree and i disagree....the statistical nature of quantum mechanics does imply that the universe is fundamentally non-mechanistic, though you are right that it wouldn't transfer into a theory of mind. a more reasonable non-reductionist mind theory involves emergence, not quantum mechanics. it's all about levels of complexity.
@pedrosanchez89 Actually, there is no consensus about that. A lot of actual quantum physicists hold differing opinions, and some certainly hold opinions contrary to what materialistic reductionism could ever account for.
"...and we scientists now know that it's closely linked to this gene, here, which gives you such a weak sense of self that you hang on to anything that makes you feel more secure emotionally whether it's fundamentalist religion or a reductionist view of the universe." lmao x 5. This is fantastic.
@piromaniac9999 You missed the point of the video mate, he's claiming that nobody can know everything but some people, like himself are completely smartarses. He's not being narcissistic, he's being sarcastic. Perhaps it's just our british humour you may have misinterpreted, sarcasm is part of our culture. :-)
yes, yes, yes..this is so good! 'Frog in the well' philosophy - material science can manipulate material nature - BUT it cannot undertand it's origins.
Unlike you, Cleese is at least making an argument.. Do you care actually to make an argument to enlighten us as to why Cleese's position is "weak", or shall we just accept your word on the subject? Yeah, that's what I thought....
@MarshmallowEyes Exactly. Which is why the two sides on the religious debate, arguing in this thread, strikes me as so funny. The point went RIGHT over their head.
Ah, I thought you were arguing the opposite. So we both understand John Cleese...as for the rest of them, if John Cleese cannot sugar-coat the idea in enough humor, there is no helping them. :)
@korzon Yes, John Cleese, an outspoken supporter of rationalism and skepticism is clanking down on scientists with an argument that is weaker than an american Budweiser. Nice try.
Wow -- we non-scientists who have just seen this video now know that it was pretty f**king funny. But, alas, I see that the comments below consist of the usual verbal abuse being exchanged by people who, however f**king funny they may have initially found the video, nonetheless would vastly prefer to have a rabid ideological argument about its meaning. [sigh]
@underdonkey5 Yes, I see. In any case, I suppose the question should be whether reductionism (once clearly defined) is correct or incorrect and not whether it makes one feel good or bad.
I think we should try and avoid 'correct' and 'incorrect' when applied in general terms. We have an evolved brain that thinks in a certain way. We will never get around our logic, and nothing is absolutely 'objective'. However, science is really useful, and we can 'think' of concepts beyond normal experience e.g. wave-partical duality, radio-waves. Reductionism works, but anything we think, is not reality, just a model!
I would advise you to ease down on the rhetoric, and instead be a little more argumentative. If you would like to be taken seriously - or at least make your points clear or simply believable, it might be in your favour to especially calm down the pathos.
As it is, as Zhero4 says, they way you formulate your sentences may actually do you a disfavour, and make you seem religious. (Ref: The fact that you typed Atheist, as seen with a capital letter, when in fact this is incorrect)
@sergiomats It's right between the gene that makes you post quotes from a video as a comment and the gene that makes you believe anything said with a British accent.
@guigs219 Good posts. It's also worth adding that Hitler wrote in his book "Mein Kampf(y Chair? :D) that Darwin was basically a twat and God made everything.
Just recently scientists discovered the gene that causes Materialists to have the desire to explain everything in materialistic terms... even explain the immaterial mind which they employ in manufacturing their Monist explanations that prove it is indeed, "material"
Thus, Psychologists are capable of "speaking" illness into remission. "You are HEALED, I command you". oh oh... convulsion time!
Morality only requires the realization that there are others "like me" out there. I don't like being harmed, therefore I don't harm others. No religion needed.
As for religion. the burden of proof is on those who claim there is a god, and there is no evidence to support this claim. (Throughout our history we have made up - and sometimes later discarded - Ra, Thor, Zeus, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu, and all the rest, which leads me to suspect that it's all incorrect.)
Hawking has spent his life exploring the consequences of Einsteins general relativity, (and hoping to unite it with quantum mechanics, which no one has yet been able to do). Neither he nor anyone else has found stuff where nothing is there. Scientific claims rely on evidence.
True, black holes have not been directly observed, but there is tons of evidence in the ultra high x-ray frequency radiation patterns emitted by charged particles falling into intense gravitational fields consistent with black hole theory. Is this proof that black holes exist? No. But physics is not about proof. Its about levels of confidence supported by evidence. Thats hardly nothing.
@lds8714 Hey, don't worry about it. :) Sometimes I forget whether I'm making a joke or not, in the middle of a joke. I certainly found your posts interesting and informative :)
LOL you guys (Guigs219 & Zhero4) are deep. Of course, kudos to ya'll for turning what is normally uncontrolled ranting and hate spewing and turning it into a TRUE debate. Not that ya'll are making much progress here, but hey, it's organized. Wish congress could debate like ya'll...
i defend reasonable believers, who make out the silent majority of almost every faith but don't attract peoples attention because they aren't as loud mouthed as fanatics.
so if someone sayd: i hate homosexuals becourse it's unnatural, otherwhise they could get children. that would be fine by you?
and if you are not talking about religions but about its leaders (the churches) then why did you call it sad that people still believe in religion? because that attacks each and every small believer in this world and not the churches.
the question i liked answered is weather you would disrespect someone to values moral higher than his fellow man.
and again, yes people are judgemental and they treat you better, if you are "one of them but thats not, what religion was made for and people don't need religion to be like that, it's just what they use to be able to claim having a point.
you didn't get my point: of course i know, that atheism isn't about anger, but if i take what i see right now and ignore the information i don't like i can argur that it is. and thats exactly what you do with religion.
and what is that nonsense about religions being organized and atheism not?
you have to keep in mind that religions have created several jobs: a priest is a job and i am sure that professional atheists if they exist have a ranking system.
hats like me saying: you are aggressive so atheism is all about irrational hatred.
don't you see, that you have no prove for what you are saying and that you are clinging to this belive of yours just becourse it is an easy explanation, supplying you with an easy enemy rather than admitting that not religion is the problem but people being able to turn everything into a weapon, be it science, believe, moral or anything else?
so you would disrespect someone who values moral higher than his fellow man?
and how come you don't see the irony in what you are saying?
you are so aggressive in your believes yet you complain about religions being to vile. and a church is not a religion. the pope is not a religion. if he does something its not the religion that does it. duozends of popes where murderers and slept around with whores but that is not what the religion is about.
i defend them from being verbally abused by people, who have no more or less prove than they do.
you have yet to prove to me:
1: that they are wrong.
2.: that religion is as you said the cause of murder hatred and so on and is not just abused to promote it.
you complain about them believing mindlessly in something without any prove but you do exactly the same. you believe in science but your arguments aren't scientific.
2.: of course evolution is real, what made you think, i didn't believe that? and yes it is a contradiction, if it realy is what he said... but lets take america as an example: america startet a couple of wars, and it had slavery for quite some time, yet you wouldn't say that the sole purpose of america is war and injustice, now would you?
it's the same with religion: sure, there where mistakes made by their leaders, but that soesn't make the hole idea bad.
1.: you obviously didn't read what i wrote, so i'll just quote myself: "i did never intend to say, that the nazis where right in any way."
2.: so what, now you say there IS a god? and even though, have you never done anything which contradicted what you actually belive in? never said anything you regretted later on?
and i never said he didn't say it, i just said, thats not, what the bible is about.
yes i know what you mean my friend i got it the first time, what you are not getting is that you are doing the same thing.
you say it's all made up, without any evidence that it is.
you suggestet the "No God theory" and now you have to back it up. but you can't.
so just going about claiming that "the real sad thing in all this is that people still believe in that crap that was certainly invented to create wars" without any evidence.
again: i dont see the big difference between a war justified by a distorted religion or a war justified by distorted science.
its people, fundamentalists, politicians or what ever you want to call them who start wars and they will abuse anything they can to justify themselfes. in the past it happened to be religion becourse there was no science as we know it. if there had been a stronger believe in science it would surely have been justified that way.
so? you just say "There is no God" why should anyone believe that?
again you are not listening to what i said: religion doesn't start wars. its the people who lead them and who have definitive political motivations.
no islamist attacked america for centuries but once the islamist leaders could hope to gain power by attacking america (you will see therefore that none of the leaders seem to be eager to become suizidebombers themselfes) they use religion in the same way nazis used science.
so you are admiting that you have no counter facts?no proof that there is no god?than how do you know that it's all made-up?
next point: so i used a different word, i meant the same thing... he used certain thing he needed and ignored the other stuff just like people do with religion. they read the parts of what ever holy book they happen to have within the reach of their arms
and i know what you mean but non of the mayor religions are based on violence they get used to justify it but thats it.
first of all can you prove that there is not one true religion? or at least one true grain covered in a lot of rituals and so on?what difference does it make if he abused real facts?
Is it in anyway less horrible what Hitler did because he turned the word of great minds into a hatespeech?
and noone invented religions to start wars if it were, parcifism would not be an option in religions. buddhism wouldn't exist and non of what jesus said would be in the bible.
what Hitler said was absolute nonsense, but he used or abused, to be more precisely the scientific theories to justify his actions,just like fundamentalists use religion to justify their actions. Religion isn't the course for genocide in the same way, that science isn't the course for genocide. people use both of them by taking means of conscious reduction and misinterpretation.
its not even about fundamentallism to be honest: most of the wars have a clear political motivation.
that is only half true, religions dont start wars, fundamentalists do, they only happen to explain it with religion which goes for science as well. since you mentioned genocide ill talk about the nazis even though i'd rather not.
they explained lots of what they did with pseudo science: evolution as a reason for murder, which of course is not what it is about just like religion isn't about hatred but they justified their actions with what they called science.
It's not a gene that causes people to believe in god, but a neurotoxic chemical called theotoxin. Theotoxin is found in abundance in the brains of religious people and destroys the parts of the brain that controls logic, empathy, and openmindedness.
Yes, it's close to the gene that causes atheism and causes irrational belief such as: the world created itself out of nothing; things appear designed, but aren't; moral values exist, but cannot exist if we are just atoms and molecules. Look up Thinking Matters New Zealand and come over and have a chat...
@120c I see YOU have the gene that makes people miss the point of comedy sketches, and the gene that makes you take everything incredibly seriously. Cheerio.
@120c And then I glanced down the page and realized that almost everyone who has commented on this has that gene. It must be linked to the gene that makes you want to post comments on YouTube in the first place; I think I'm going to go do something else now . . .
I've seen atheist meetings with a striking resemblance to church meetings. It's not the Bible and Jesus, it's the selfish gene and Dawkins. In either case, they themselves rarely understand either. It's two sides to one coin.
People develop their opinion according to the local norms. It is only when a person is marginalized, they break that rule. And usually, they just end out in the opposite ditch.
People quote science to appear 'brighter' and people quote religion to appear more 'pius'.
Metastate12 2 weeks ago
So funny since Michael Palin is heavily into science, namely astronomy.
marklenthecool 1 month ago
*punch* Thank you. I needed that.
kooora18 3 months ago
Amazing... I never grow tired of watching it. It is also a powerful dispeller of dawkinists foruns... surely because it is disconcerting to be confronted with true geniality.
Pukutusi 3 months ago in playlist Pukutusi's favorites
This has been flagged as spam show
Its funny because he manages to make digs at both fundamentalism and atheism. But the real essence of this video is that not everything can be calculated mechanically, which is one of the greatest aspects of human life. And take it as you will, but that's ultimately saying something to those believe humans can fully grasp mankind within their own scope of understanding which actually constrains us within such limits
Bebop4000 3 months ago
Comment removed
Bebop4000 3 months ago
The real problem is that as humans we have a tendency to harden our opinions into dogmas. Our attitude by nature, is to be close minded and question everything except our own assumptions. Religious people, contrary to what many espouse, ARE capable of critical thinking, just not in regards to their own beliefs! And sadly, many scientists are guilty of the same hypocrisy. The scientific method practiced ideally is a pursuit of the unknown, not an inflexible dogmatic materialist worldview.
GermanOperaSinger 3 months ago
@GermanOperaSinger
True... everyone has a blind spot he refuses to aknowledge.
ThisOneIsTaken 3 months ago
John Cleese is my hero! :)
wizkid2000 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"[There is] only one means to curtail, simplify and localize the bloody agony of the old society and the bloody birth-pangs of the new, only one means-the revolutionary terror." -Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Religion, atheism, and political ideologies don't kill people. People kill people.
77gnitsuj 4 months ago
"[There is] only one means to curtail, simplify and localize the bloody agony of the old society and the bloody birth-pangs of the new, only one means-the revolutionary terror." -Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Religion, atheism, and political ideologies don't kill people. People kill people.
77gnitsuj 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."- Surah Tawba 9:5
77gnitsuj 4 months ago
Wait, who is he criticizing?
Dorminay42 4 months ago
@Dorminay42
Mostly atheists, overall fanatics and people who confuse beliefs with science.
In other words, anyone who becomes desperately and fanatically fixated with his own vision of the world and who tries to impose it on everyone else by "validating" it with pseudo-science.
seppsters 4 months ago 2
@seppsters I'm an Atheist but I don't try to change religious people's minds. I can respect someone who puts his faith in something higher. Though personally I find it silly.
however, ALL religions ( including Budhism, yes) have no respect for women. Islam is about peace and helping the poor for example, but there is NO respect for womens rights, wrong in my opinion. Christianity has based itself around racism and bigotry, however, through logic thinking, this is dying.
bramlegend 4 months ago
Nothing has murdered, tortured or descriminated more people than systems based on atheism or systems without strong dogmatic spiritual values. The most disgusting (but definitely not the only) manifestation of this was communism, there was plenty of hatred and bigotry there, yet no religion
You seem to believe that rational thought will inevitably lead to ethical behaviour and this is complete and absolute non-sense
If you really worry about people's welfare you should at least support religions
seppsters 4 months ago
@seppsters even the communists had a religion look at Soviet they were christian orthodox christians.
China are buddhistic. Cuba is christian in fact most people in a country are religious. And now the christian crusades killed about 2,000'000 people not to talk about the spanish inquistion who killed and tortured many.
The abrahamitic wars are big killing machines and yet you say that religion do not kill. And I never believed in god and I live ethically correct. And even animals live ethical.
livedandletdie 4 months ago
@livedandletdie
China was buddhistic, Soviet Union was Christian ? Rofl,you have no idea of what you're talking and you're not getting the point. You seem to be too stupid to understand that "abrahamitic" religions caused alot less death and misery than atheism or lack of spiritual belief and if you're too stupid too understand that, there's no point in debating any further.
seppsters 4 months ago
@seppsters It is you who is "too stupid too understand". Lack of belief has never motivated someone to comitt crimes against humanity. No genocide or war was ever started to spread atheism. On the other hand, the spread of religion has killed millions of people.
BTW: Only 16% of Russians and just 14% of Chineese people are athiests. In fact, 70% of Russians are Christian.
Md2802 4 months ago
@Md2802 Athiesm was part of the state sponsered ideology associated with communism. There were wars and genocide to help spread communism. So yes and also spread athiesm as part of the comunist ideology. Religious people persecuted and killed because they chose to believe in something.
I'm not taking sides with religion, I'm anti-religious. I'm just stating facts. I beleive people should be free to beleive in or not beleive in what they want or don't want to beleive in. I beleive in freedom.
14sJakeB190 4 months ago
@14sJakeB190 Although athiesm was part of the Soviet Unions state ideology, religion was never officially outlawed. Of the estimated 20 million people who died under Stalin's rule, relatively few were killed because of their religious beliefs [roughly 80,000 (0.4%) to 200,000 (1%)].
Md2802 4 months ago
@Md2802 Still, it happened.
Political ideologies, religion, lack of religion, ideas, etc, don't kill people. People kill people.
14sJakeB190 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@14sJakeB190 "ideas, etc, don't kill people. People kill people". Bullshit. It takes a bad theory, whether political or religious, to kill people.
Md2802 3 months ago
@Md2802 Fortunately that's only a small percentage.Stelin wasn't that bad after all, right. What a relief!
warpnin3 3 months ago
@seppsters I neutral on the religion vs non-religion debate. But I have to point out that combined over the history of humanity religion has been a tool used to motivate people to kill other people. I have no idea how many people have been killed as a result, but it's probably more than Athiesm.
Athiesm may have killed more people in the 20th century, but not total combined.
So if both religion and athiesm kills... I think neither kills. I think people kill people.
14sJakeB190 4 months ago
@seppsters not to be a cunt but the thing religion have done is create fundamentalists that kills people everyday.
In the bible it says to kill everyone if they misbehave. All religions support wars so called crusades. look at christianity after year 0 in the name of christianity have 8 million people died at least. In the name of atheism 0.
Communists live by one rule everyone is the same and everybody should share. But it is as they say a fool that uses god as defence has no defence.
livedandletdie 4 months ago
@livedandletdie
Again, you seem to be using your personal opinions/problems and distort historical facts. "In the name of atheism" ? How about "not in the name of religion" ? or "in the name of self-interest". You'll find alot of people had been killed NOT in the name of religion by the year 0. The bible states a commandment: Thou shalt not murder. Commandments override any other statement there.
seppsters 4 months ago
@bramlegend
Reply alert
But in most cases, what motivates people to leave religions is not concern for others.
seppsters 4 months ago
@bramlegend Why do you blindly generalize them all?
You forgot about Sikhism.
"The role of women in Sikhism is outlined in the Sikh scriptures, which state that the Sikh woman is to be regarded as equal to the Sikh man."
Source: Google search.
14sJakeB190 3 months ago
@14sJakeB190 kay sorry about that then but my point is just that religion has been the cause of a lot of injustices including racism, the crusades, torture, witch hunting, abuse and disregard towards women, etc...
I don't think however that one should outlaw religion in general, any religion. As long as you don't give spiritual leaders ACTUAL power, because that's just a recipe for disaster.
Just a month ago, there was this video of priests attacking each other, imagine that with armies.
bramlegend 1 week ago
that ought of shut him up
richoscurlew1 5 months ago
Have my babies, John Cleese.
Daim0th 5 months ago
eww Nickolas Cage movies
penisfuckeye 5 months ago
@penisfuckeye Wild at Heart is good.
MrByronDunbar 5 months ago
I learned a lot from this. Not a lie.
brandon9966 6 months ago
God, that's hilarious! XD
OzSweetness 6 months ago
anyone find this a parody on the modern notion of genetic predisposition?
(Which often convices people that they have little to no control over the quality of their life versus those who say nutrition and lifestyle have MUCH more influence on the genetic development of a living being)
Most importanty: LOL!
pitterpattern 6 months ago
@MrJustSandy No, he is making fun of fundamentalist materialists who have a naive 19th century impression of what science is telling us about the nature of reality.
forestloves 6 months ago
Where is the Gene Simmons?
GHeroandRScape 6 months ago
My gene made me "like" this video.
seandchoi 7 months ago
he looks like my old chemistry teacher in this video!
ZamCronos 7 months ago
reductionism all as bad as people make it look like
huge python fan btw !!!
soumyaaymous 7 months ago
RIP Graham Chapman.
pdow52 7 months ago
He is wrong about quantum mechanics, it does not say that you cant explain everything mechanically it says that mechanics becomes statistical in nature and a bit hard to explain, but it is still, quantum MECHANICS. So just so people know, although i love john cleese... please become qualified before you start talk knowingly about quantum mechanics, its a fairly simple idea thats really difficult to explain.
pedrosanchez89 7 months ago
@pedrosanchez89 dood. have some coconut ice cream and chill the heck down - it's "comedy", from the Latin "comoedia" and the Greek "komoidia", meaning "an amusing spectacle". notice: an AMUSING spectacle, not an "edifying" spectacle, an "educational" spectacle, or even a "factually correct" spectacle.
threenorns3 7 months ago
@threenorns3 Lol calm down man I'm chilled. His comedy is a means to an end in this example, not just flat out comedy, and I study quantum physics and a lot of people take it to conclusions which it doesnt lead to, which is annoying because I'm just a bit stuck up like that and would prefer people to get their facts right rather than believe things that aren't true. Also a hell of a lot of people dont keep the fact that cleese doesnt know what he is talking about in their minds when watching.
pedrosanchez89 7 months ago
@pedrosanchez89 thats actually not true...he is insulting the subject because of his vast knowledge of the content...
Cobra9876 6 months ago
@pedrosanchez89 i agree and i disagree....the statistical nature of quantum mechanics does imply that the universe is fundamentally non-mechanistic, though you are right that it wouldn't transfer into a theory of mind. a more reasonable non-reductionist mind theory involves emergence, not quantum mechanics. it's all about levels of complexity.
bmbenblog 6 months ago
@pedrosanchez89 Actually, there is no consensus about that. A lot of actual quantum physicists hold differing opinions, and some certainly hold opinions contrary to what materialistic reductionism could ever account for.
forestloves 6 months ago
@pedrosanchez89 you do realise he's probably reading from a script
marcusantonio91 5 months ago
@marcusantonio91 Its john cleese, he probably wrote it.
pedrosanchez89 5 months ago
Haha! That was great. But I'm not so sure about that Nucleic Acid model...
kennydinoboy 7 months ago
"...and we scientists now know that it's closely linked to this gene, here, which gives you such a weak sense of self that you hang on to anything that makes you feel more secure emotionally whether it's fundamentalist religion or a reductionist view of the universe." lmao x 5. This is fantastic.
AceObrin 8 months ago 27
mmmmmmmmmm?????
rociopetu 8 months ago
Gene-ius...
lickmylovepump12 8 months ago 14
This video gave Daniel Dennett another heart attack so he disliked it 47 times.
theocean1973 9 months ago 2
1:17 ...Right next to the gene that makes you want to see Nicholas Cage movies.
I have that gene!!!
Thesmitster 9 months ago
Wow i never knew that john cleese was a narcissist.
he seems so sure of himself and full of himself that he has the answer to everything.
piromaniac9999 9 months ago
@piromaniac9999 You missed the point of the video mate, he's claiming that nobody can know everything but some people, like himself are completely smartarses. He's not being narcissistic, he's being sarcastic. Perhaps it's just our british humour you may have misinterpreted, sarcasm is part of our culture. :-)
frostyuk2007 8 months ago 2
strange since i watch plenty of british comedy.
piromaniac9999 8 months ago
@piromaniac9999 I rather think that's exactly NOT what he's saying...
1944chaz 7 months ago
yes, yes, yes..this is so good! 'Frog in the well' philosophy - material science can manipulate material nature - BUT it cannot undertand it's origins.
georgiegirlize 9 months ago
And this gene makes people surf for the internet porn.
elmuerteyu 10 months ago
@AnatoleEricsson:
Unlike you, Cleese is at least making an argument.. Do you care actually to make an argument to enlighten us as to why Cleese's position is "weak", or shall we just accept your word on the subject? Yeah, that's what I thought....
Hypnopomp 10 months ago
Nicholas Cage is a gift from God.
wingnutofcoolness 11 months ago 2
@wingnutofcoolness I...think you misspelled; that's J-O-H-N C-L-E-E-S-E
Abobojo 10 months ago
what song is that ?, its good :)
christibrany 1 year ago
i love cleese
maxipoo333 1 year ago
There is clearly a gene which makes people argue about this video
antandcharmi 1 year ago 4
Wow. People are REALLY reading too deep into a satirical "As usual, NO ONE really knows what the hell is going on" Joke.
MrPossessed 1 year ago
@MrPossessed
He really does mean that no one really knows what's going on.
MarshmallowEyes 1 year ago
@MarshmallowEyes Exactly. Which is why the two sides on the religious debate, arguing in this thread, strikes me as so funny. The point went RIGHT over their head.
MrPossessed 1 year ago
@MrPossessed
Ah, I thought you were arguing the opposite. So we both understand John Cleese...as for the rest of them, if John Cleese cannot sugar-coat the idea in enough humor, there is no helping them. :)
MarshmallowEyes 1 year ago
@MrPossessed It's actualy sarcasm against scientists making things up having an explaination for everything.
korzon 1 year ago
@korzon Yes, John Cleese, an outspoken supporter of rationalism and skepticism is clanking down on scientists with an argument that is weaker than an american Budweiser. Nice try.
AnatoleEricsson 1 year ago
Did he just troll both atheists and fundamentalists in the same 2 minutes?
lectrick 1 year ago 36
@lectrick Yes, lol!
Melayahm01 1 year ago
Love it!
courthmp 1 year ago
John Cleese is a bloody legend! I love him a little bit more for this video. :D
missdeckchair 1 year ago
fucking champion
FeastFX 1 year ago
"and this is the gene that makes you forget that in the 1920's Quantum Mechanics utterly destroyed any Mechanical view of the Universe"
haha, so Cool.
rowania 1 year ago 3
I prefer his early, funny ones.
sdonoh 1 year ago
Real name = John Cheese
pauldve 1 year ago
Wow -- we non-scientists who have just seen this video now know that it was pretty f**king funny. But, alas, I see that the comments below consist of the usual verbal abuse being exchanged by people who, however f**king funny they may have initially found the video, nonetheless would vastly prefer to have a rabid ideological argument about its meaning. [sigh]
Vidiot1955 1 year ago 4
Why would reductionism make you feel better?
nothingnesswithouten 1 year ago
@nothingnesswithouten
because it gives a false sense of explanaition of the universe.. a bit like saying 'god made it so', but more useful
underdonkey5 1 year ago
@underdonkey5 Yes, I see. In any case, I suppose the question should be whether reductionism (once clearly defined) is correct or incorrect and not whether it makes one feel good or bad.
nothingnesswithouten 1 year ago
@nothingnesswithouten
I think we should try and avoid 'correct' and 'incorrect' when applied in general terms. We have an evolved brain that thinks in a certain way. We will never get around our logic, and nothing is absolutely 'objective'. However, science is really useful, and we can 'think' of concepts beyond normal experience e.g. wave-partical duality, radio-waves. Reductionism works, but anything we think, is not reality, just a model!
underdonkey5 1 year ago
And we all know that what John Cleese says is the God's truth.
vivalaleta 1 year ago
@vivalaleta
in a way, yes. As part of creation, we are all expressing God's truth ;)
underdonkey5 1 year ago
@underdonkey5 What God?
vivalaleta 1 year ago
@vivalaleta
the God you were referring to in the line before
underdonkey5 1 year ago
@underdonkey5 The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
vivalaleta 1 year ago
Comment removed
fluffycornsnake 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cleese is an inbred retard!
najami12 1 year ago
@guigs219
I would advise you to ease down on the rhetoric, and instead be a little more argumentative. If you would like to be taken seriously - or at least make your points clear or simply believable, it might be in your favour to especially calm down the pathos.
As it is, as Zhero4 says, they way you formulate your sentences may actually do you a disfavour, and make you seem religious. (Ref: The fact that you typed Atheist, as seen with a capital letter, when in fact this is incorrect)
katiefication 1 year ago
Cleese is a Gen - ius
JAGAE 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
SCOOOOT BIETEL HAS A TINY LITTLE HEAD
Nave177 1 year ago
SCOTT BEITEL HAS A TINY LITTLE HEAD
Nave177 1 year ago
Funny but somewhat wrong
thesparitan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cleese is an inbred retard! Benny Hill considered funnier than Monty Python by two TV stations (WOR and WLVI)!
Bestmanme08 1 year ago
Not fallacious or scientifically illiterate at all.
Saerain 1 year ago
Poorly written
tnekkc 1 year ago
@tnekkc is this Christianity poorly written or the sketch?
gietek 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Christianity is a software program, that when loaded onto the human platform, makes them run much better.
Look at the income of Christians vs non Christians.
Cleese's career might not be in the toilet if he were Christian.
tnekkc 1 year ago
i want him to b my science teacher
pinky2ify 1 year ago 2
I absolutely love it.
Ficks2 1 year ago 2
Where is the gene that makes me surf on YouTube looking for silly videos?
sergiomats 1 year ago 134
@sergiomats Between the gene that makes you think old people are annoying and the gene that makes you like banana cream pie.
Redwingfan345 11 months ago
@sergiomats It's right between the gene that makes you post quotes from a video as a comment and the gene that makes you believe anything said with a British accent.
OtherGonzo 11 months ago
@sergiomats Right under the one that makes people hit the "thumbs up" button
aerialpunk 9 months ago
@sergiomats You found it, being here
Arthounot 6 months ago
@sergiomats Right near the odd gene that makes me feel a need to reply to comments.
MrBastilleDay 5 months ago 3
@sergiomats not sure, cause tyhis is where the intelligent video @
zezt 5 months ago
@sergiomats the CleeseIzzeAwesome gene
alpop850 4 months ago
@sergiomats maybe you're related to John Cleese!
robertruston 4 months ago
factanistas, with their pier review method. Seen one pier you seen them all, I say.
sydferret 1 year ago
After seeing this I start asking myself: Where is the gene that gives me the urge to slap someone in the face with a fish?
LordMandylion 1 year ago 4
@LordMandylion It's the IRC gene.
niuchemist 1 year ago
HOLY SHIT.
This man is awe-inspiringly brilliant.
curriejean 1 year ago 64
@curriejean
I agree, Cleese is awesome.
Tiamat583 5 months ago
Thank You, Mr Cleese!
AfterFauve001 1 year ago
I really need to say something about? No? Ok... but I say: great!
darkcgr 1 year ago
John Cleese demolishes the "closed system" nonsense made up by materialists.
sergiomats 1 year ago 3
Our acting it's not metrial matter it's spiritual matter
JesusMiddleEastGuy 1 year ago
@guigs219 Good posts. It's also worth adding that Hitler wrote in his book "Mein Kampf(y Chair? :D) that Darwin was basically a twat and God made everything.
TheGreatPyro 1 year ago
I love cleese, always funny
murmurrrr 1 year ago
Just recently scientists discovered the gene that causes Materialists to have the desire to explain everything in materialistic terms... even explain the immaterial mind which they employ in manufacturing their Monist explanations that prove it is indeed, "material"
Thus, Psychologists are capable of "speaking" illness into remission. "You are HEALED, I command you". oh oh... convulsion time!
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
He forgot to mention the gene that makes some people speak with a accent which ruins the American language
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
You mean English?
GrahamChapman 1 year ago
Interesting discussions.
Morality only requires the realization that there are others "like me" out there. I don't like being harmed, therefore I don't harm others. No religion needed.
As for religion. the burden of proof is on those who claim there is a god, and there is no evidence to support this claim. (Throughout our history we have made up - and sometimes later discarded - Ra, Thor, Zeus, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu, and all the rest, which leads me to suspect that it's all incorrect.)
lds8714 1 year ago
@lds8714 Oh hey nothing in this bit of space I guess there's nothing there OH WHAT'S THAT YOU SAW MR. HAWKING?
Lazyguy22 1 year ago
@Lazyguy22
--- part 1 of 2 ---
Hawking has spent his life exploring the consequences of Einsteins general relativity, (and hoping to unite it with quantum mechanics, which no one has yet been able to do). Neither he nor anyone else has found stuff where nothing is there. Scientific claims rely on evidence.
lds8714 1 year ago
@Lazyguy22
--- part 2 of 2 ---
True, black holes have not been directly observed, but there is tons of evidence in the ultra high x-ray frequency radiation patterns emitted by charged particles falling into intense gravitational fields consistent with black hole theory. Is this proof that black holes exist? No. But physics is not about proof. Its about levels of confidence supported by evidence. Thats hardly nothing.
lds8714 1 year ago
@lds8714 Christ, remind me to never tell a joke when you're around.
Lazyguy22 1 year ago 2
@Lazyguy22
oops... sorry.
lds8714 1 year ago
@lds8714 Hey, don't worry about it. :) Sometimes I forget whether I'm making a joke or not, in the middle of a joke. I certainly found your posts interesting and informative :)
Lazyguy22 1 year ago
LOL you guys (Guigs219 & Zhero4) are deep. Of course, kudos to ya'll for turning what is normally uncontrolled ranting and hate spewing and turning it into a TRUE debate. Not that ya'll are making much progress here, but hey, it's organized. Wish congress could debate like ya'll...
frogfoot21 1 year ago
nope.
i defend reasonable believers, who make out the silent majority of almost every faith but don't attract peoples attention because they aren't as loud mouthed as fanatics.
Zhero4 1 year ago
never said that.
Zhero4 1 year ago
no they wouldn't.
you can explain every behaviour morally, be it as violent as you like.
Zhero4 1 year ago
so if someone sayd: i hate homosexuals becourse it's unnatural, otherwhise they could get children. that would be fine by you?
and if you are not talking about religions but about its leaders (the churches) then why did you call it sad that people still believe in religion? because that attacks each and every small believer in this world and not the churches.
Zhero4 1 year ago
the question i liked answered is weather you would disrespect someone to values moral higher than his fellow man.
and again, yes people are judgemental and they treat you better, if you are "one of them but thats not, what religion was made for and people don't need religion to be like that, it's just what they use to be able to claim having a point.
Zhero4 1 year ago
and yes there are black sheep, but there is nothing which doesn't create something like that.
there are people who kill themselves, because they are broken hearted, would you therefore claim love to e a evil thing?
and why haven't you answered my question yet?
Zhero4 1 year ago
you didn't get my point: of course i know, that atheism isn't about anger, but if i take what i see right now and ignore the information i don't like i can argur that it is. and thats exactly what you do with religion.
and what is that nonsense about religions being organized and atheism not?
you have to keep in mind that religions have created several jobs: a priest is a job and i am sure that professional atheists if they exist have a ranking system.
Zhero4 1 year ago
would you first answer my question?
Zhero4 1 year ago
hats like me saying: you are aggressive so atheism is all about irrational hatred.
don't you see, that you have no prove for what you are saying and that you are clinging to this belive of yours just becourse it is an easy explanation, supplying you with an easy enemy rather than admitting that not religion is the problem but people being able to turn everything into a weapon, be it science, believe, moral or anything else?
and 9-11 had nothing to do with religion.
Zhero4 1 year ago
so you would disrespect someone who values moral higher than his fellow man?
and how come you don't see the irony in what you are saying?
you are so aggressive in your believes yet you complain about religions being to vile. and a church is not a religion. the pope is not a religion. if he does something its not the religion that does it. duozends of popes where murderers and slept around with whores but that is not what the religion is about.
Zhero4 1 year ago
i defend them from being verbally abused by people, who have no more or less prove than they do.
you have yet to prove to me:
1: that they are wrong.
2.: that religion is as you said the cause of murder hatred and so on and is not just abused to promote it.
you complain about them believing mindlessly in something without any prove but you do exactly the same. you believe in science but your arguments aren't scientific.
Zhero4 1 year ago
as to your AIDS argument: no i am not a person of great faith, i am simply defending those who are.
and if he exists one could argue, that he doesn't cure all the AIDS infected people, but he has given us the tools to find out how to do it our selfs.
Zhero4 1 year ago
i think we are clear on point 1 now.
2.: of course evolution is real, what made you think, i didn't believe that? and yes it is a contradiction, if it realy is what he said... but lets take america as an example: america startet a couple of wars, and it had slavery for quite some time, yet you wouldn't say that the sole purpose of america is war and injustice, now would you?
it's the same with religion: sure, there where mistakes made by their leaders, but that soesn't make the hole idea bad.
Zhero4 1 year ago
1.: you obviously didn't read what i wrote, so i'll just quote myself: "i did never intend to say, that the nazis where right in any way."
2.: so what, now you say there IS a god? and even though, have you never done anything which contradicted what you actually belive in? never said anything you regretted later on?
and i never said he didn't say it, i just said, thats not, what the bible is about.
Zhero4 1 year ago
oh snap, hit me with the bible, no one ever got that idea before.
i said people take the parts of religions they like and ignore the rest in order to justify their murder.
the fact that "thou shalt not kill" as one uf the ten commands is surely more important than this lovely little anecdote is ignored...
and the nazis used the same tecnique... they took parts of Darwins theory and ignored others to make it confirm teir believes.
Zhero4 1 year ago
i did never intend to say, that the nazis where right in any way.
and religion doesn't say, that god said make a war, its religious leaders, that do and they have political reasons to do so.
Zhero4 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
yes i know what you mean my friend i got it the first time, what you are not getting is that you are doing the same thing.
you say it's all made up, without any evidence that it is.
you suggestet the "No God theory" and now you have to back it up. but you can't.
so just going about claiming that "the real sad thing in all this is that people still believe in that crap that was certainly invented to create wars" without any evidence.
Zhero4 1 year ago
again: i dont see the big difference between a war justified by a distorted religion or a war justified by distorted science.
its people, fundamentalists, politicians or what ever you want to call them who start wars and they will abuse anything they can to justify themselfes. in the past it happened to be religion becourse there was no science as we know it. if there had been a stronger believe in science it would surely have been justified that way.
Zhero4 1 year ago
so? you just say "There is no God" why should anyone believe that?
again you are not listening to what i said: religion doesn't start wars. its the people who lead them and who have definitive political motivations.
no islamist attacked america for centuries but once the islamist leaders could hope to gain power by attacking america (you will see therefore that none of the leaders seem to be eager to become suizidebombers themselfes) they use religion in the same way nazis used science.
Zhero4 1 year ago
so you are admiting that you have no counter facts?no proof that there is no god?than how do you know that it's all made-up?
next point: so i used a different word, i meant the same thing... he used certain thing he needed and ignored the other stuff just like people do with religion. they read the parts of what ever holy book they happen to have within the reach of their arms
and i know what you mean but non of the mayor religions are based on violence they get used to justify it but thats it.
Zhero4 1 year ago
i don't see your point there.
first of all can you prove that there is not one true religion? or at least one true grain covered in a lot of rituals and so on?what difference does it make if he abused real facts?
Is it in anyway less horrible what Hitler did because he turned the word of great minds into a hatespeech?
and noone invented religions to start wars if it were, parcifism would not be an option in religions. buddhism wouldn't exist and non of what jesus said would be in the bible.
Zhero4 1 year ago
my point exactly.
what Hitler said was absolute nonsense, but he used or abused, to be more precisely the scientific theories to justify his actions,just like fundamentalists use religion to justify their actions. Religion isn't the course for genocide in the same way, that science isn't the course for genocide. people use both of them by taking means of conscious reduction and misinterpretation.
its not even about fundamentallism to be honest: most of the wars have a clear political motivation.
Zhero4 1 year ago
that is only half true, religions dont start wars, fundamentalists do, they only happen to explain it with religion which goes for science as well. since you mentioned genocide ill talk about the nazis even though i'd rather not.
they explained lots of what they did with pseudo science: evolution as a reason for murder, which of course is not what it is about just like religion isn't about hatred but they justified their actions with what they called science.
so does science start genocide?
Zhero4 1 year ago
Wow. Is this podcast just on YouTube? 'Cause if it is, it's the only really quality online video I've seen in a long time.
Lockpeople 2 years ago 2
This is one of the best things there has ever been.
existenceisrelative 2 years ago 3
lol at genetic determinism. good show, Cleese!
Kain59242 2 years ago
It's not a gene that causes people to believe in god, but a neurotoxic chemical called theotoxin. Theotoxin is found in abundance in the brains of religious people and destroys the parts of the brain that controls logic, empathy, and openmindedness.
AresCassell 2 years ago
Yes, it's close to the gene that causes atheism and causes irrational belief such as: the world created itself out of nothing; things appear designed, but aren't; moral values exist, but cannot exist if we are just atoms and molecules. Look up Thinking Matters New Zealand and come over and have a chat...
apologeticsnz 2 years ago
You've got a severe case of theotoxosis if i've ever seen one.
AresCassell 2 years ago
CAN HE BE SAVED DOCTOR?
Philomathie 2 years ago
I don't know. His case seems to be pretty severe. However, the Romans used to cure theotoxosis with lions.
AresCassell 2 years ago
then its fair to say that conservatives, republicans and red necks are filled to the brim with that stuff.
120c 2 years ago 11
@120c Indeed many of them are. Indeed.
AresCassell 2 years ago
@120c I see YOU have the gene that makes people miss the point of comedy sketches, and the gene that makes you take everything incredibly seriously. Cheerio.
AlexanderVan 1 year ago 4
@120c And then I glanced down the page and realized that almost everyone who has commented on this has that gene. It must be linked to the gene that makes you want to post comments on YouTube in the first place; I think I'm going to go do something else now . . .
AlexanderVan 1 year ago
@120c No, they have the gene that makes you have sex with your siblings.
jc8ward 1 year ago
LOL @ AresCassell. I'd want the CAS registry number and the molecular